Felton v. State, 304 Ga. 565

On Oct. 25, 2010 Eric Wright was shot to death at a closed car wash; his girlfriend was the sole eyewitness and called 911.
Police examined the victim’s phone, generated leads and presented about six photographic lineups; the girlfriend identified Felton in the sixth lineup on Nov. 3, 2010 after investigators traced phone records linking Felton’s number to a number in another suspect’s records.
Ballistics matched recovered casings/projectile to a .380; medical examiner testified multiple gunshot wounds (including defensive wounds) caused homicide.
Felton was convicted (malice murder, firearm offenses) after a 2014 jury trial and sentenced to life without parole plus consecutive firearm terms; felony-murder conviction vacated as matter of law.
On appeal Felton argued the trial judge’s courtroom comments during cross-examination violated former OCGA § 17-8-57 by expressing opinions and bolstering witness testimony; no contemporaneous objection was made.
The Supreme Court applied the post-2015 plain-error standard (Willis) and affirmed, holding the remarks were evidentiary colloquy/clarification, not improper commentary affecting outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Jackson standard not met; identification unreliable	Evidence (eyewitness ID, phone records, ballistics, ME) supports convictions	Evidence sufficient; convictions upheld
Judicial commentary under former OCGA § 17-8-57	Judge’s on-the-record comments (speculating re: phone call, calling questioning a “fishing expedition,” and prompting that leads were followed) improperly bolstered witnesses and usurped jury	Comments were rulings/explanations during evidentiary colloquies and permissible clarifying questions; did not comment on guilt or witness credibility	No plain error: comments were within scope of evidentiary rulings/clarification and did not affect substantial rights; affirmance

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Willis v. State, 304 Ga. 122 (application of post-2015 OCGA § 17-8-57 plain-error standard)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (plain error test articulated)
McGinnis v. State, 258 Ga. 673 (judge’s reasons for rulings not treated as comment on evidence)
Paslay v. State, 285 Ga. 616 (judge may engage in colloquies about admissibility)
Dailey v. State, 297 Ga. 442 (judicial musings may be unnecessary but not per se § 17-8-57 violations)
Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412 (trial judge may propound clarifying questions)
Smith v. State, 292 Ga. 588 (trial court may guide counsel to ensure fair trial)
Ridley v. State, 290 Ga. 798 (comments explaining evidentiary rulings do not violate § 17-8-57)
Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 785 (plain error analysis for judicial comments)
Murphy v. State, 290 Ga. 459 (judge’s explicit credibility praise can violate § 17-8-57)